It was said sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation. but as you said they are actions of body, so they can be either virtuous or not virtuous depending on motivation.
so:
what makes a sex crime different from other actions of body such that they are by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?

While killing somebody or stealing can be imagined being done for the benefit of others and even the victim, I kinda doubt there is any such scenario with rape, or any of the sorts. It is because cheating, rape, etc are caused by a strong sexual desire and by definition there is no space for thinking of how it influence others.

The case with killing and stealing is different, just look at Robin Hood, or the story of the merchant from the sutras. There are no such stories with sexual misconduct anywhere.

What? So killing can be done with a mind that does not come from strong aversion but cheating on your spouse or causing another person to cheat on their spouse can only be caused by strong sexual desire?

My question is about this underlying assumption. What is it that makes negative sexual actions ALWAYS, absolutely, caused by a strong sexual desire?

You might not realize this, but you begged the question with your answer.

I don't think you are right about that. The Buddhas emanated as a copy of Rudra and had sex with his consort in order to give birth to an emanation that could subjugate Rudra.

This is from Patrul Rinpoche's Nine Considerations:

If something would benefit lower beings such as animals but harm higher ones such as humans, do not act for the benefit of the lower. Even if an action would harm some animals, if it would benefit humans and the like, then act for the humans’ benefit. The same principle applies with regard to ordinary people and practitioners of Dharma, and among practitioners, with regard to shravakas and bodhisattvas.

3. Consideration of the number of beings
If many beings would be helped and few harmed, you should act to benefit the many. But if many would be harmed and few helped, do not act. If the numbers and the help and harm would be equal, by relying on teachings of skilful methods of protection from harm, you will succeed in helping.

4. Consideration of this and future lives
If it would benefit others in both this life and those to come, you should act to benefit them, by all means. Whenever it would benefit neither life, you should not act. If it would help in this life but harm in future ones, do not act. Even if it would harm in this life, if it would help in the next, being skilful with methods to protect this life from harm you should act to benefit the next.

Let's do a thought experiment:
With these criteria in mind, which are just the first 4, we can imagine a scenario like this:
There are a large number of Dharma practitioners who need to develop pure vision, as a result they have broken samayas and as a result of that they reside in Vajra Hell and cannot develop pure vision any more at all regarding their teacher
The teacher of those Dharma practitioners sees that there are also other Dharma practitioners who have potential to have very fruitful practice in this lifetime, but not if they are influenced by samaya breakers, but for some reason, these students with potential and without broken samayas are dead-set on being students of said teacher
But the teacher knows the students will only have fruitful practice in this lifetime if they are not influenced by the community's samaya breaking practitioners, so the teacher decides to commit an act that will drive them all away while also displaying to those with broken samayas some kind of lesson about impermanence and precious human birth and the rarity of the teacher and the path and leisures and so on
Now, there are also some students who are attracted to the teacher and mistakenly relate to him on a sexual level and competitive level instead of with pure vision, but unfortunately they do not realize this.
So the teacher decides the best course of action is to: 1) cause the high potential students to find new teachers who do not have students with broken samaya that will influence them. doing this will have a great benefit for innumerable beings because one of those students will become a Buddha in a short number of lifetimes as a result of practicing well in this lifetime 2) break the habits of the students who relate to the teacher sexually and without pure vision by pointing out to them that they are lacking pure vision
so he therefore decides to commit sexual misconduct and essentially get ex-communicated by his own students.
In doing so, he causes the high potential students to realize that the other students have broken samaya, because of how they criticize their teacher, and so those high potential students leave. In the process of doing so, they develop true pure vision and as a result find their teacher who has pure students. Those without pure vision now realize they dont have pure vision, but cannot generate pure vision regarding their teacher because they're in vajra hell. However, due to this, they will have the opportunity to meet some other teachers who will tell them what their teacher did was wrong, and they will begin to see this new teacher as a Buddha because this teacher hasn't done the "naughty thing". So then, since they developed pure vision, they will actually be lifted out of vajra hell.

Totally hypothetical. I don't think that's what happened with Sogyal or SMR. I'm just saying as a thought experiment... in this scenario, committing this sexual misconduct would technically be more beneficial than not doing it.

What? So killing can be done with a mind that does not come from strong aversion but cheating on your spouse or causing another person to cheat on their spouse can only be caused by strong sexual desire?

My question is about this underlying assumption. What is it that makes negative sexual actions ALWAYS, absolutely, caused by a strong sexual desire?

You might not realize this, but you begged the question with your answer.

I don't think you are right about that. The Buddhas emanated as a copy of Rudra and had sex with his consort in order to give birth to an emanation that could subjugate Rudra.

... etc.

I am sorry but unless you show me that the most extreme form of sexual misconduct (rape) is used in jatakas, or any other buddhist (or maybe even non-buddhist) story for the benefit of all beings I am not convinced. Maybe except the cheating.

The difference here is that while murder or theft can be done to a person in position of power, rape is usually done on weaker person and from the position of power.

“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

I am sorry but unless you show me that the most extreme form of sexual misconduct (rape) is used in jatakas, or any other buddhist (or maybe even non-buddhist) story for the benefit of all beings I am not convinced.

If you’re ok with that conclusion I’m okay with it. Nothing says you need to be convinced. I must admit I have a hard time coming up with a hypothetical where love and compassion would require a forced rape too.

1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me. Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

I am sorry but unless you show me that the most extreme form of sexual misconduct (rape) is used in jatakas, or any other buddhist (or maybe even non-buddhist) story for the benefit of all beings I am not convinced.

If you’re ok with that conclusion I’m okay with it. Nothing says you need to be convinced. I must admit I have a hard time coming up with a hypothetical where love and compassion would require a forced rape too.

Agree to disagree. This topic is rather sticky, better to leave it.

“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

What? So killing can be done with a mind that does not come from strong aversion but cheating on your spouse or causing another person to cheat on their spouse can only be caused by strong sexual desire?

The classic example where sexual misconduct is engaged in to benefit another is the story where a bodhisattva monk is the object of a young women's desperate desire for him. She threatens to kill herself unless he gives himself to her and breaks his vows. So he does.

I don't think you are right about that. The Buddhas emanated as a copy of Rudra and had sex with his consort in order to give birth to an emanation that could subjugate Rudra.

Haven't heard that version of the story. I don't think this is quite right.

What? So killing can be done with a mind that does not come from strong aversion but cheating on your spouse or causing another person to cheat on their spouse can only be caused by strong sexual desire?

The classic example where sexual misconduct is engaged in to benefit another is the story where a bodhisattva monk is the object of a young women's desperate desire for him. She threatens to kill herself unless he gives himself to her and breaks his vows. So he does.

I don't think you are right about that. The Buddhas emanated as a copy of Rudra and had sex with his consort in order to give birth to an emanation that could subjugate Rudra.

Haven't heard that version of the story. I don't think this is quite right.

I am sorry but unless you show me that the most extreme form of sexual misconduct (rape) is used in jatakas, or any other buddhist (or maybe even non-buddhist) story for the benefit of all beings I am not convinced.

If you’re ok with that conclusion I’m okay with it. Nothing says you need to be convinced. I must admit I have a hard time coming up with a hypothetical where love and compassion would require a forced rape too.

So it stands to reason rape is the only action of body that can not be done with bodhichitta motivation but regarding the other forms of sexual misconduct the hypotheticals can be generated.

Well there’s a documented story of the great wandering advadhoot Shaivite yogi Bhagavan Nityananda where wearing just his simple dhoti (he was often totally naked which could be construed as sexual assault alone in some places) approached a women on a road and immediately grabbed both of her breasts in his hands, slightly twisting them. Of course this appeared just like sexual assault to the onlookers and a crowd of men quickly gathered to rough him up. However he explained calmly that she had had a few babies that died during infancy and it was related to her milk, and now she’d no longer have that issue. The woman was shocked and confirmed this was true. So the men were bewildered enough to let him be. And naturally, her next child was fully healthy and grew into maturity. So that’s one example, albeit of an outwardly Hindu yogi, who was performing a selfless and beneficial act that to all appearances looked like sexual assault.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

I would venture to opine that if anyone here were to review the life story of Drukpa Kunleg in detail, it’d be hard not to find some instances that would look like sexual assault on an ordinary level, especially from a modern Western POV.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

I would venture to opine that if anyone here were to review the life story of Drukpa Kunleg in detail, it’d be hard not to find some instances that would look like sexual assault on an ordinary level, especially from a modern Western POV.

There's also this story:

There was a Rinpoche who died and one day a monk, his student, was walking down the road while a woman was walking up the road across from him. He approached her, jumped on top of her and said "we have to have a child right now!" and she hit him and pushed him off and questioned his actions.
"What are you doing!? How dare you!? You're supposed to be a monk!!!!!"
His reply:
"Never mind. Rinpoche just became a goat."

The Bodhisattva Vow to commit one of the physical non-virtues of body or speech if love and compassion deem it necessary is Mahayana.

Let’s keep our Yanas straight.

1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me. Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

The Bodhisattva Vow to commit one of the physical non-virtues of body or speech if love and compassion deem it necessary is Mahayana.

Let’s keep our Yanas straight.

Hm. I've been talking about Vajrayana this whole time.

I’ve been speaking in the specific context of the Bodhisattva Vow. It is more or less compatible with empiracism and common sense.

Vajrayana posits an awareness and scope of activity that goes beyond empirically accepted facts. Thus a measure of faith is required. That is not so persuasive to an unindoctrinated mind.

1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me. Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

The Bodhisattva Vow to commit one of the physical non-virtues of body or speech if love and compassion deem it necessary is Mahayana.

Let’s keep our Yanas straight.

Hm. I've been talking about Vajrayana this whole time.

I’ve been speaking in the specific context of the Bodhisattva Vow. It is more or less compatible with empiracism and common sense.

Vajrayana posits an awareness and scope of activity that goes beyond empirically accepted facts. Thus a measure of faith is required. That is not so persuasive to an unindoctrinated mind.

Vajrayana still operates within the context of the Bodhisattva vow. You dont need to be a Vajrayana practitioner to develop siddhis. What I am talking about is the fact that one cannot talk about the circumstances of committing a seemingly negative act with bodhichitta intention without mentioning that usually to do this requires siddhis and supercognition, which make it a difficult conversation to have at all.

Vajrayana still operates within the context of the Bodhisattva vow. You dont need to be a Vajrayana practitioner to develop siddhis. What I am talking about is the fact that one cannot talk about the circumstances of committing a seemingly negative act with bodhichitta intention without mentioning that usually to do this requires siddhis and supercognition, which make it a difficult conversation to have at all.

Everybody I know has taken the Bodhisattva Vow. They’re supposed to keep it. None of them have supercognitions or siddhis.

The bodhisattva Vow specifies that a negative act of body or speech is to be made “if love and compassion deem it necessary “. Love and compassion may be the basis for bodhicitta, but they’re a little more common.

“Bodhicitta motivation” is the aspiration to full enlightenment for all other beings. specifically It takes love and compassion into the context and focus of all beings in the cycle of endless birth and death. It is very specific to religious aspiration.

Of course if one does have supercognitions and siddhis they’re still bound by the Bodhisattva Vow. In a discussion where supercognitions and siddhis are accepted as fact, in theory plenty of fanciful scenarios are possible where even (what looks like) forced rape is appropriate. This idea is totally alien and offensive so the empirically based pedestrian mind.

Supercognitions and siddhis are very rare in today’s world, and abuse of these ideas is all too common. So I just thought that level of discussion was a bridge too far for this thread. Better to keep it in the context of the Mahayana Bodhisattva Vow.

1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me. Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

Vajrayana still operates within the context of the Bodhisattva vow. You dont need to be a Vajrayana practitioner to develop siddhis. What I am talking about is the fact that one cannot talk about the circumstances of committing a seemingly negative act with bodhichitta intention without mentioning that usually to do this requires siddhis and supercognition, which make it a difficult conversation to have at all.

Everybody I know has taken the Bodhisattva Vow. They’re supposed to keep it. None of them have supercognitions or siddhis.

The bodhisattva Vow specifies that a negative act of body or speech is to be made “if love and compassion deem it necessary “. Love and compassion may be the basis for bodhicitta, but they’re a little more common.

“Bodhicitta motivation” is the aspiration to full enlightenment for all other beings. specifically It takes love and compassion into the context and focus of all beings in the cycle of endless birth and death. It is very specific to religious aspiration.

Of course if one does have supercognitions and siddhis they’re still bound by the Bodhisattva Vow. In a discussion where supercognitions and siddhis are accepted as fact, in theory plenty of fanciful scenarios are possible where even (what looks like) forced rape is appropriate. This idea is totally alien and offensive so the empirically based pedestrian mind.

Supercognitions and siddhis are very rare in today’s world, and abuse of these ideas is all too common. So I just thought that level of discussion was a bridge too far for this thread. Better to keep it in the context of the Mahayana Bodhisattva Vow.

This is a Vajrayana discussion in a Dzogchen thread...
In the context of keeping pure vision, even just intellectually, the notion of a teacher having siddhis should IMO be taken into account. I think if I understand you correctly, you are saying actually in the case of a Vajrayana scenario such as this, we should investigate it through a general Mahayana scope?

TrimePema wrote:
This is a Vajrayana discussion in a Dzogchen thread...

Oops, right you are. However I think that it is in a Dzogchen forum simply because of having been split off from an authentically Dzogchen thread. I think the mods should move it someplace more appropriate.

In the context of keeping pure vision, even just intellectually, the notion of a teacher having siddhis should IMO be taken into account.

If that context is accepted by all parties, then yes, absolutely. But that's not a given here at DW. In fact it is rarely seen.

I think if I understand you correctly, you are saying actually in the case of a Vajrayana scenario such as this, we should investigate it through a general Mahayana scope?

Nope. I just thought the Mahayana level would be more accessible for people in the context of this thread.
*****
At issue was the possibility of a rape being justified by Dharma. My input was coming from the Bodhisattva Vow, which allows for unconventional conduct if love and compassion deem it necessary. I admitted that I personally couldn't fathom a scenario where such an act is deemed necessary by love and compassion. So therefore it was agreed that such an act can never be justified in Dharma. You responded,

TrimePema wrote:So it stands to reason rape is the only action of body that can not be done with bodhichitta motivation but regarding the other forms of sexual misconduct the hypotheticals can be generated.

This is the parsing I was looking for.

Könchog Thrinley also accepted it.

Köchog Thrinley wrote: Agree to disagree. This topic is rather sticky, better to leave it.

So at that point the issue was basically settled by mutual agreement, in including yours, on a Mahayana level of doctrine.

But then the supercognition siddha stories came out. That's fine, as this is a forum for Vajrayana Buddhism. But if you cross that line into having pure view of the guru, the entire discussion changes. With an authentic realized Vajra Master the empirical-pedestrian opinions we all share no longer apply. As your hypothetical about the guru and his students points out, the guru might be doing something completely beneficial when it looks like something much less worthy. If we take supercognitions as real, that means the guru is dealing with infinitely complex unripened karmas that we do not see. Therefore we do not understand what he is doing. If we buy into this narrative, then we have to completely let go of our criticisms and judgments as being hopelessly uninformed.

Of course if you don't buy into this narrative, this is all unbelievably and overwhelmingly cultish horse apples. This view must also be accepted.

So then back to the question that was being discussed; is there any scenario where the appearance of rape is ever justified? I see you having had contradictory posts regarding this question.
*****
NB: I am not advocating for rape being justified by Dharma. I admitted that I cannot conceive of a scenario where where love and compassion deem it necessary. Nor am I acting as an apologist for Sogyal R. or SMR. Please see my statement of support for HHDL and Mingyr R's position on lama abuse in my signature below all my posts.

1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me. Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

Forgive me if I'm essentially repeating what others have already concluded, but it seems Malcom's use of the term "sex crimes" and not "sexual misconduct" is pretty clear. He replied to my question about "misconduct" as being basically the same in Vajrayana as in Mahayana and Hinayana. So while rape and fallatio are both considered misconduct and are forbidden, I find it difficult to see how two consenting adults in a mutually loving relationship performing oral sex for mutual giving and receiving of pleasure is harmful and thus a negative karma (Malcom said it mainly has to do with hygiene). Whereas multiple posters have already observed that rape/sexual assault is the deliberate sexual overpowering and violation (on multiple levels) of an unwilling or non-consenting person, either by force or coercion or while the other is defenseless, for the purpose of self-gratification, or else motivated by some mental affliction. How could that ever be anything other than harmful? So to me, there's a pretty clear parsing of "sexual misconduct" and "sex crime." All sex crimes are sexual misconduct, but not all sexual misconduct is a sex crime.

Given Patrul RInpoche's Nine Considerations, if an action that will greatly harm you and one other being somehow greatly benefits serious practitioners by somehow leading them to realization faster, is that something that should be done?
Of course, that may be an unintended consequence, in which case, the karma works differently, doesn't it?

....for the purpose of self-gratification, or else motivated by some mental affliction. How could that ever be anything other than harmful?

What you just described is harmful on every level. In your description both the act and the motivation are completely black. The victim is immediately harmed and the perpetrator is karmically stained. I don’t think any posting in this thread would dispute that.

I find it difficult to see how two consenting adults in a mutually loving relationship performing oral sex for mutual giving and receiving of pleasure is harmful and thus a negative karma (Malcom said it mainly has to do with hygiene).

The objection might also be yogic, I.e. “that energy doesn’t go there “. But that’s a guess.

1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me. Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)